“When U.S. forces engage in a limited military mission that involves limited exposure for U.S. troops and limited risk of serious escalation and employs limited military means, we are not in hostilities of the kind envisioned by the War Powers Resolution,” State Department legal advisor Harold Koh told the committee.

[…]The discussion took a surprisingly personal turn when Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) called Koh’s argument “really pretty incredible,” and noted that U.S. planes and drones are engaged in the mission.

[…]“I would guess at night, however people of your category give high-fives, you’re talking to other academics about this cute argument that has been utilized,” Corker said. “But I would say to you that I think you’ve undermined the credibility of this administration; I think you’ve undermined the integrity of the War Powers Act; and I think by taking this very narrow approach, you’ve done a great disservice to our country.”

Many have been criticizing Koh not just for an absurd legal position but for “selling out” given his past as an outspoken critic of expansive Executive war powers. NPR interviewed “Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame who fought alongside Koh to protest a broad view of executive power that became popular during the Bush years.” She said:

Policies I believe he would have found highly questionable if they had been carried out by the Bush administration, he now is willing to so affirmatively defend.

Considering Koh’s background, the whole episode offers a cautionary tale about the corrupting effects of power. Harvard’s Jack Goldsmith notes that “for a quarter century before heading up State-Legal, Koh was the leading and most vocal academic critic of presidential unilateralism in war.” On the strength of that reputation, Koh rose to the deanship of Yale Law School in 2004.

[…] Yet the implications of Koh’s position today are that the president can rain down destruction via cruise missiles and robot death kites anywhere in the world, and unless an American soldier might get hurt, neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution are offended.

1021210 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Fantiwar.com%2Fblog%2F2011%2F06%2F29%2Fjohn-yoo-is-to-guantanamo-what-harold-koh-is-to-libya%2FJohn+Yoo+is+to+Guantanamo+What+Harold+Koh+is+to+Libya2011-06-29+13%3A58%3A30John+Glaserhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.antiwar.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D10212 to “John Yoo is to Guantanamo What Harold Koh is to Libya”

What kind of CRAP is this? If you sold pork hot dogs and labeled them turkey, you would be fined and/or imprisoned by the Food & Drug Administration. This is the future of the country we are talking about. Any mother wouldn't let her child get away with such a kindergarten level lie.
Why do all these political-classers that inhabit Washington DC with their little suits and pants-suits go bouncing along like this some harmless exercise? Insulting.

That is just on the surface of it. Yoo never claimed that the executive is only one of the the co-equal branches of the government. He actually attacked it. Consistently. Koh on the other hand flip-flopped. They are not exactly the same: Koh is worse in that he is knowingly intellectually dishonest. Yoo is just another hack.

This is the future of the country we are talking about. Any mother wouldn't let her child get away with such a kindergarten level lie. Why do all these political-classers that inhabit Washington DC with their little suits and pants-suits go bouncing along like this some harmless exercise? Insulting.seo experts academy review